tackling temporal tradeoffs in energy efficiency david j. hardisty behavioural sustainability group...

Tackling temporal tradeoffs in energy

efficiencyDavid J. Hardisty

Behavioural Sustainability GroupOct 21, 2014

Overview

1. About me and you2. Temporal tradeoffs3. Integrative framework4. Fresh data on energy efficiency (partnering with BC Hydro)

About me

About time

$0.60 now$113 for 10,000 hrs of use1600 lbs of CO2

$3.40 now$28 for 10,000 hrs of use400 lbs of CO2

25 watt CFL100 watt incandescent

Interdisciplinary work to the rescue!

• Iterative combination of Econ, Psych, & Anthro• Econ: quantitative modeling of costs and benefits (normative?)• Psych: general mental processes & tools• Anthro: cultural modes in a particular time, place, and social group• Econ + Psych + Anthro = Marketing!

(Hardisty, Orlove, Krantz, Small, Milch, Osgood, 2012)

Economics Psychology Anthropology

Paradigm

Mathematically evaluate expected outcome streams over time; discounted utility is maximized

Choice between an immediate, small reward versus a larger, delayed reward

Culturally and institutionally defined choices and ways of reasoning

Models Exponential Hyperbolic Cyclical, sacred, routine

Temporal preferences

Known, stable preference exists between any two outcome streams

Preferences are constructed in the situation, and depend on perceptions and self-control

Preferences are culturally determined

MethodMathematical models with clearly specified assumptions to make predictions

Experimental research Ethnography, based on interviews and participant observation

Strength

Systematic framework to prescribe choices under given assumptions about utility and growth

Describes the emotional and cognitive factors that shape intertemporal choices

Explores unique cultural and institutional sources of time preference; legitimacy and consent are critical

Blind Spots

Overly reliant on quantitative cost benefit analysis; unrealistic assumptions may lead to poor predictions

Weak prescription for choices No universally applicable guidelines for prescribing or describing choices

0 2.5 5 7.5 1012.5 15

17.5 2022.5 25

27.5 3032.5 35

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

exponen-tial

Months in the future

Valu

e

0 2.5 5 7.5 1012.5 15

17.5 2022.5 25

27.5 3032.5 35

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 hy-per-bolicexponen-tial

Months in the future

Valu

e

0 2.5 5 7.5 1012.5 15

17.5 2022.5 25

27.5 3032.5 35

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1cyclicalhy-per-bolic

Months in the future

Valu

e

Case Study: Light bulb purchase

• Econ: Efficiency upgrades are quite effective, but people aren't choosing them (Hausman, 1979). Why? • Anthro: Most people don't think about efficiency upgrades (Attari,

DeKay, Davidson, & de Bruin, 2010)• Different cultures prefer different light quality (Wilhite et al., 1996)

• Psych: Which tools can nudge consumers to make more energy efficient choices?• Social norms (Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007)• Defaults (Dinner, Johnson, Goldstein, & Liu, 2011) • 10-year cost labeling?

Study 1 methods

• Price: $999.95• Estimated Electricity Use (W): 121• Standby energy consumption: 0.2w• Brand: Samsung• Size: 50”• Resolution: 1080p

• Price: $749.95• Estimated Electricity Use (W): 181• Standby energy consumption: 0.4w• Brand: Samsung• Size: 50”• Resolution: 1080p

Study 1 methods

• Price: $999.95• 10-year estimated cost: $600• Estimated Electricity Use (W): 121• Standby energy consumption:

0.2w• Brand: Samsung• Size: 50”• Resolution: 1080p

• Price: $749.95• 10-year estimated cost: $1,000• Estimated Electricity Use (W): 181• Standby energy consumption:

0.4w• Brand: Samsung• Size: 50”• Resolution: 1080p

• Price: $629.99• Estimated Yearly Electricity Use

(kWh): 169• Model: 4.5 Cu. Ft.

9 cycle Top Load Washer• Brand: Samsung

• Price: $899.99• Estimated Yearly Electricity Use

(kWh): 150• Model: 4.8 Cu. Ft.

13 cycle Top Load Washer• Brand: Whirlpool

• Price: $629.99• 10-year estimated cost: $180• Estimated Yearly Electricity Use

(kWh): 169• Model: 4.5 Cu. Ft.

9 cycle Top Load Washer• Brand: Samsung

• Price: $899.99• 10-year estimated cost: $100• Estimated Yearly Electricity Use

(kWh): 150• Model: 4.8 Cu. Ft.

13 cycle Top Load Washer• Brand: Whirlpool

Study 1a Results: Clean

TV Oven Computer Monitor

Vacuum0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 Control10-year cost

Prop

ortio

n ch

oosi

ng th

e en

ergy

ef-

ficie

nt o

ption

Study 1a Results: Real

Heater Lightbulb Furnace Washing Machine

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9 Control10-year cost

Prop

ortio

n ch

oosi

ng th

e en

ergy

ef-

ficie

nt o

ption

Study 1b Results: BC Hydro

Furnace Lightbulb TV Vacuum0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 Control10-year cost

Prop

ortio

n ch

oosi

ng th

e en

ergy

effi

cien

t op

tion

Why is the 10-year cost label effective?• Goal activation• Planning horizon• Information provision• Magnitude effect (10-yrs is better than 1-yr)• Other?

• As you consider purchasing a new furnace, what product features are most important to you? Please list the three most important product features.

When purchasing a new furnace, roughly how far ahead do you plan?1. Not at all2. Up to one week3. More than one week up to one month4. More than one month up to one year5. More than one year up to five years6. More than five years up to ten years7. Ten years or more

Please imagine that you purchased the furnace above. How much do you estimate your household would spend on energy to use this furnace in your home, over a period of 1 year? $_______

Study 1c: Choice data

Furnace Lightbulb0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Control 1-year cost 5-year cost 10-year cost

Prop

ortio

n ch

oosi

ng th

e effi

cien

t opti

on

Study 1c: Energy goal prominence

Study 1c: Planning horizons

Study 1c: Estimation

Study 1 Summary

• Operational cost labeling is effective• Why? • For bulbs, it is driven by planning horizon• For furnaces, it is driven by energy saving goals & improved estimation

Energy study 2:

• Psych: people have much lower temporal discount rates for losses than for gains (Hardisty & Weber, 2009)• Let's see how much that matters with appliances

Study 2: Methods

• Price: $764.99• Estimated Yearly Dollar [Energy]

Savings [Cost]: $27 [259 kWh]• Interior Capacity: Up to 16 place

settings• Dishwasher Type: Full-size built-

in• Brand: Bosch

• Price: $649.99• Estimated Yearly Dollar [Energy]

Savings [Cost]: $0 [279 kWh]• Interior Capacity: Up to 14 place

settings• Dishwasher Type: Full-size built-in• Brand: LG

Study 2: Results

Cost Saved$650

$660

$670

$680

$690

$700

$710

$720

$730

$740

$750 MoneyEnergy

Will

ingn

ess

to P

ay fo

r Ene

rgy

Effici

ent

Dis

hwas

her

Going forward

• Policy implications: • For energy intensive products, stores should put the operational cost on the

price tag (similar to unit cost labeling)

• Research:• Further explore mediators & moderators• Compare with & against existing methods (social norms, defaults, etc)• Field studies

Thank you!